Can the productive service industry become new momentum for China’s economic growth

LI Ping1 FU Yifu2 ZHANG Yanfang3

(1.Institute of Quantitative and Technical Economics, CASS 100732)
(2.Research Centre for Macro Economy, Suning Institute of Finance 100025)
(3.Institute of Industrial Economics, CASS 100836)

【Abstract】In recent years, the scale of service industry has been continuously increasing, the share of which in the national economy has exceeded 50%, and the proportion of the producer service sector is close to one third. With the arrival of the post-industrial period, the proportion of the service industry and producer service will continue to rise. Therefore, in the new normal, as the mainstay of the national economy, the fact that whether the development of service industry can support the rapid growth of China’s economy has drawn much attention. Based on the dynamic mechanism of economic growth, this paper calculates and decomposes the total factor productivity growth rate (TFP index), in order to explore the impact of technological progress and industrial structure transformation on overall macroeconomic productivity and macroeconomic growth, by which to prove the significance of producer service sector as the new momentum of China’s economic growth in the future. The results show that due to the higher level of technological progress and the strong gathering of capital and labor, the producer service sector could enhance the overall macroeconomic total factor productivity, and then promote the sustainable growth and high-quality development of national economy, so it can well be the new momentum for the high-quality growth of the Chinese economy under the New Normal.

【Keywords】 producer service; growth accounting; TFP index decomposition; new momentum; high quality growth;

【DOI】

【Funds】 Innovation Program of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (10620161001005) General Program of National Soft Science (2014GXS4B073)

Download this article

    Footnote

    [1]. ① The year-efficiency model characterizes the situation that the production capacity of various capital with different service span changes (decaying) as time goes by, generally depicted by the hyperbolic mode, which can be expressed by, where T is the (maximum) service span of capital; n is the current year; and the parameter b ≤ 1 determines the form of the function. The “retirement model” shows that various types of capital retire (or wear out) after their service span, usually depicted by logarithmic normal distribution, it can be expressed by, where σ and μ represent standard deviation and mean value of the logarithmic normal distribution respectively,; m and s are the mean value and standard deviation of the normal distribution behind the logarithmic normal distribution. The sign m represents the average service span; s is located in [m/4,m/2], and the bigger it is , the steeper the distribution is. [^Back]

    [2]. ② PIM can be expressed as, where Ki,tP is the productive capital stock of the ith capital in period t; hi,τ and Fi,τ represent the year-efficiency model and retirement model respectively; INi,t represents the investment expenditure for the ith capital in period t, that is fixed capital formation; qi,t,0 is the price index. [^Back]

    [3]. ① User cost can be expressed as, where μi,t,s represents the user cost of the ith capital in period t; the subscript s represents the span that the capital has served; q is price of asset; r is rate of return on capital and d is depreciation rate. The sign ρ represents the change of asset price. The right part of the equation also reflects the conversion relationship between user costs of one kind of capital in different periods. [^Back]

    [4]. ② Limited by space, here we do not give the measurements of capital input and labor input. [^Back]

    [5]. ③ From 2010 to 2014, the data of working hours of the producer service sector and the secondary industry rose slightly by comparing with the last period, while that of the consumer service sector declined greatly. The reason why the contribution rate of labor declined was that working hours spent in the consumer service sector in recent years showed an obvious downward trend, and its contribution degree declined gradually, even to be negative. [^Back]

    References

    [1] Bai, J. & Bian, Y. China Industrial Economics (中国工业经济), (11): 39–55 (2016).

    [2] Cai, Y. & Fu, Y. Economic Research Journal (经济研究), (1): 72–88 (2017).

    [3] Cai, Y. & Zhang, J. Economic Research Journal (经济研究), (12): 100–114 (2015).

    [4] Chen, B. & Li, W. Journal of Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (中国社会科学院研究生院学报), (6): 86–90 (2006).

    [5] Gu, N. Journal of Business Economics (商业经济与管理), (4): 34–39 (2005).

    [6] Guo, Q. & Jia, J. Economic Research Journal (经济研究), (6): 51–60 (2005).

    [7] Han, F., Wang, Z. & Yang, L. Industrial Economics Research (产业经济研究), (2): 1–10 (2014).

    [8] Hu, F. & Huang, Y. Journal of Xi’an Institute of Finance & Economics (西安财经学院学报), (6): 10–14 (2009).

    [9] Ji, S., Zhu, Y. & Zhang, X. China Industrial Economics (中国工业经济), (6): 73–90 (2016).

    [10] G. Grubel and A. Walker. Service Industry Growth: Causes and Effects (服务业的增长:原因与影响). Shanghai: SDX Joint Publishing Company, (1993).

    [11] Li, P. Management World (管理世界), (9): 1–11 (2016).

    [12] Li, S. & Gao, C. Investigation and research report of Development Research Centre of the State Council (2007).

    [13] Li, Z., Han, X. & Feng, G. Economic Management Journal (经济管理), (12): 21–30 (2015).

    [14] Liu, G. & Li, J. Hubei Social Sciences (湖北社会科学), (11): 4–6 (2001).

    [15] Liu, J. Journal of Shanghai University of Finance and Economics (上海财经大学学报), (3): 75–82 (2010).

    [16] Liu, W. & Zhang, H. Economic Research Journal (经济研究), (11): 4–15 (2008).

    [17] Liu, Z. China Economic Studies (中国经济问题), (1): 10–17 (2001).

    [18] Liu, Z. Tianjin Social Sciences (天津社会科学), (2): 89–92 (2006).

    [19] Yue, X. & Ren, R. Economic Research Journal (经济研究), (3): 16–28 (2008).

    [20] Zhang, H. 中国经济增长的产业结构效应和驱动机制. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2013.

    [21] Zhang, H. & Wang, X. Economic Science (经济科学), (4): 53–61 (2009).

    [22] Zhang, Y. & Liu, L. Forum of World Economics & Politics (世界经济与政治论坛), (4): 79–86 (2008).

    [23] Zheng, J. Journal of Zhejiang Shuren University (浙江树人大学学报), (1): 27–32 (2005).

    [24] Zheng, Y. Economic Research Journal (经济研究), (9): 3–11 (2007).

    [25] Zhong, Y. & Yan, X. Human Geography (人文地理), (5): 46–51 (2003).

    [26] Chenery, H. B., S. Robinson, and M. Syrquin. Industrialization and Growth: A Comparative Study. Oxford University Press, 1986.

    [27] Coelli, T. J., D. S. P. Rao, C. J. O’Donnell, and G. Battese. An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis (Second Edition). New York: Springer Science & Business Media Inc., 2005.

    [28] Denision, E. F. The Source of Economic Growth in the U.S.and the Alternatives Before Us. New York, Committee for Economic Development, 1962.

    [29] Fagerberg, J. Technological Progress, Structural Change and Productivity Growth: A Comparative Study. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 2000, (11): 392–411.

    [30] Francois, J., and J. Woerz. Producer Services, Manufacturing Linkages, and Trade. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 2008, 8(3–4): 199–229

    [31] Gagnon, J. E., D. Bowman, C. Erceg, C. Evans, and J. Guerrieri. Productive Capacity, Product Varieties. Review of International Economics, 2003, 15(4): 639–659.

    [32] Griliches, Z. Productivity, R & D, and the Data Constraint. American Economic Review, 1994, 84(1): 221–236.

    [33] Hulten, C. R. Total Factor Productivity: A Short Biography. NBER Working Paper, 2000.

    [34] Jorgenson, D. W. Capital Theory and Investment Behavior. American Economic Review, 1963, 53(2): 247–259.

    [35] Jorgenson, D. W., and Z. Griliches. The Explanation of Productivity Change. Review of Economic Studies, 1967, 34(3): 249–283.

    [36] Kendrick, J. W. Productivity Changes in the Economy. NBER Chapters, in: Productivity Trends in the United States, 1961.

    [37] Kuznets, S. Quantitative Aspects of the Economic Growth of Nations: Industrial Distribution of Income and Labor Force. Economic Development & Cultural Change, 1958, 6(4): 1–128.

    [38] Markusen, J. R. Trade in Producer Services and in Other Specialized Intermediate Inputs. American Economic Review, 1989, 79(1): 85–95.

    [39] Massell, B. F. A Disaggregated View of Technical Change. Journal of Political Economy, 1961, 69(6): 547–557.

    [40] OECD. Measuring Productivity: Measurement of Aggregate and Industry-level Productivity Growth. OECD Manual, 2001.

    [41] OECD. Measuring Productivity (Second Edition). OECD Manual, 2009.

    [42] Park, S. H. Linkages between Industry and Services and Their Implications for Urban Employment Generation in Developing Countries. Journal of Development Economics, 1989, 30(4): 359–379.

    [43] Park, S. H., and K. S. Chan. A Cross-country Input-output Analysis of Intersectoral Relationships between Manufacturing and Services and Their Employment Implications. World Development, 1989, 17(2): 199–212.

    [44] Peneder, M. Industrial Structure and Aggregate Growth. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 2003, (14): 427–448.

    [45] Saccone, D., V. Valli. Structural Change and Economic Development in China and India. The European Journal of Comparative Economics, 2009, 6(1): 101–129.

    [46] Solow, R. M. Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function. Review of Economics and Statistics, 1957, 39(8), 312–320.

    [47] Syrquin M. Resource Allocation and Productivity Growth. Syrquin M., Taylor L., Westphal, L. E. (Eds.), Economic Structure and Performance: Essays in Honor of Hollis B. Chenery. Academic Press, 1984.

    [48] Syverson, C. What Determines Productivity. Journal of Economic Literature, 2011, 49(2), 326–365.

    [49] Timmer, M. P., A. Szirmai. Productivity Growth in Asian Manufacturing: The Structural Bonus Hypothesis Examined. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 2000, (11): 371–392.

    [50] Uno, K. Measurement of Services in an Input-Output Framework. North Holland: Amsterdam, 1989.

This Article

ISSN:1006-480X

CN: 11-3536/F

Vol , No. 12, Pages 5-21

December 2017

Downloads:1

Share
Article Outline

Abstract

  • 1 Research Questions
  • 2 Theoretical framework and research design
  • 3 Source of China’s economic growth and macro TFP index decomposition
  • 4 Conclusions and implications
  • Footnote

    References